Aims: To perform a systematic review of the literature dealing with the prevalence of bruxism in adult populations.Methods: A systematic search of the medical literature was performed to identify all peer-reviewed English-language papers dealing with the prevalence assessment of either awake or sleep bruxism at the general population level by the adoption of questionnaires, clinical assessments, and polysomnographic (PSG) or electromyographic (EMG) recordings. Quality assessment of the reviewed papers was performed according to the Methodological evaluation of Observational REsearch (MORE) checklist, which enables the identification of flaws in the external and internal validity. Cut-off criteria for an acceptable external validity were established to select studies for the discussion of prevalence data. For each included study, the sample features, diagnostic strategy, and prevalence of bruxism in relation to age, sex, and circadian rhythm, if available, were recorded.Results: Thirtyfive publications were included in the review. Several methodological problems limited the external validity of findings in most studies, and prevalence data extraction was performed only on seven papers. Of those, only one paper had a flawless external validity, whilst internal validity was low in all the selected papers due to their selfreported bruxism diagnosis alone, mainly based on only one or two questionnaire items. No epidemiologic data were available from studies adopting other diagnostic strategies (eg, PSG, EMG). Generically identified "bruxism" was assessed in two studies reporting an 8% to 31.4% prevalence, awake bruxism was investigated in two studies describing a 22.1% to 31% prevalence, and prevalence of sleep bruxism was found to be more consistent across the three studies investigating the report of "frequent" bruxism (12.8% ± 3.1%). Bruxism activities were found to be unrelated to sex, and a decrease with age was described in elderly people.Conclusion: The present systematic review described variable prevalence data for bruxism activities. Findings must be interpreted with caution due to the poor methodological quality of the reviewed literature and to potential diagnostic bias related with having to rely on an individual's self-report of bruxism.

Aims: To identify potential predictors of self-reported sleep bruxism (SB) within children's family and school environments.Methods: A total of 65 primary school children (55.4% males, mean age 9.3 ± 1.9 years) were administered a 10-item questionnaire investigating the prevalence of self-reported SB as well as nine family and school-related potential bruxism predictors. Regression analyses were performed to assess the correlation between the potential predictors and SB.Results: A positive answer to the self-reported SB item was endorsed by 18.8% of subjects, with no sex differences. Multiple variable regression analysis identified a final model showing that having divorced parents and not falling asleep easily were the only two weak predictors of self-reported SB. The percentage of explained variance for SB by the final multiple regression model was 13.3% (Nagelkerke's R2 = 0.133). While having a high specificity and a good negative predictive value, the model showed unacceptable sensitivity and positive predictive values. The resulting accuracy to predict the presence of self-reported SB was 73.8%.Conclusion: The present investigation suggested that, among family and school-related matters, having divorced parents and not falling asleep easily were two predictors, even if weak, of a child's self-report of SB.

Aims: To test whether temporomandibular disorders (TMD) case-control differences in conditioned pain modulation (CPM) exist, using a mechanically evoked temporal summation (TS) model.Methods: A series of 10 repetitive, mildly noxious, mechanical stimuli were applied to the fingers of 30 women with TMD, who had a primary diagnosis of masticatory myofascial pain, and 30 age-matched healthy women. The subjects rated the pain intensity caused by the 1st, 5th, and 10th stimuli in the series. To evaluate CPM, the same series of mechanical stimulations were applied with concomitant exposure of the other hand to a painfully cold water bath. Statistical inferences were based on t tests, chi-square tests, or analysis of variance (ANOVA), as appropriate.Results: Pain ratings increased significantly with stimulus repetition (P < .01) and CPM significantly reduced TS of pain (P < .01). Of particular note, both groups showed very similar degrees of CPM, with no significant group difference.Conclusion: Painful TMD is not necessarily associated with a compromised ability to engage the endogenous analgesic system in an experimental setting.

Aims: To assess intraoral inter- and intraexaminer reliability of three qualitative measures of intraoral somatosensory function and to compare these measures between patients with atypical odontalgia (AO) and healthy controls.Methods: Thirty-one AO patients and 47 healthy controls participated. Inter- and intraexaminer reliability was tested on a subgroup of 46 subjects (25 AO; 21 healthy). Sensitivity to touch, cold, and pinprick stimuli was evaluated on the painful gingival site and the corresponding contralateral site in AO patients, and bilaterally on the gingiva of the first maxillary premolars in controls. Patients were asked to report hypersensitivity, hyposensitivity, or normal sensitivity to stimuli on the painful site compared with the nonpainful site. Kappa values were calculated, and chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare frequencies between groups.Results: Kappa values ranged between 0.63 and 0.75. The frequency of hypersensitivity to either modality was significantly higher in patients (29% to 61%) than in controls (9% to 17%) (P < .015), whereas reports of hyposensitivity were similar between groups (2% to 16%) (P > .057). Only 3.2% of the AO patients had no reports of abnormal sensitivity on any of the tests, compared with 59.6% of the healthy subjects (P < .001).Conclusion: Intraoral qualitative somatosensory testing can detect intraoral sensory disturbances in AO patients, and the reliability is sufficient for initial screening of orofacial somatosensory function.

Aims: To carry out a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate in patients with arthralgia of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) the effectiveness of TMJ lavage compared to nonsurgical treatment with regard to pain intensity and mandibular range of motion.Methods: The electronic databases Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2012), PubMed/Medline (1966-2012), and Embase (1966-2012) were systematically searched for relevant RCTs. References of relevant articles were searched for additional studies, as well as citing reports. Two authors independently performed data extraction by using predefined quality indicators. Relevant outcome data included reduction in pain, as assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS) or a pain score, and maximal mouth opening (MMO) before and 6 months after treatment. Included trials were combined using fixed and random effects meta-analysis.Results: Three RCTs (222 patients) were included for meta-analysis. The statistically significant overall standardized mean difference (SMD) (P < .001) with regard to pain intensity was -1.07 (95% CI = -1.38, - 0.76) in favor of TMJ lavage. The MMO did not change significantly (P > .05, SMD = .05 [95% CI = -0.33, 0.23]).Conclusions: The results suggest that lavage of the TMJ may be slightly more effective than nonsurgical treatment for pain reduction. However, this difference is not likely to be clinically relevant.